Lazarus

If the road has a dip in it then the road goes down but comes back up.

If space/time bends down as light approaches the sun, it has to bend up as the light leaves the sun. I thought that we were in agreement that a light year from the sun in either direction that the space/time geodesic is almost the same as the straight line in flat space.

Yes. That is the easy part. We can fix the direction the light arrives at earth by increasing the space/time curvature so the line passes the sun at a distance a bit greater than the radius of the sun. This seems to correlate to the Einstein Rings around galaxies since the rings appear to be greater than the radius of the galaxy. However, that still leaves me with the problem that gravity changes the direction of light permanently but the space/time curvature has to return to the original direction.

Back when I was working with black and white CRT's, I found that my focusing distance was getting further out. I discovered that when I shifted my vision from the screen to the metal frame that I could feel my eyes refocusing. What was happening was that my eyes would go slightly out of focus to make the screen easier to read. I started turning the screen brightness down so low that peope walking by would say that the screen was blank. There was no feeling of refocusing on shifting from the screen to the metal sides. Also, My focal distance improved. I agree that looking away from the screen every few minutes makes a big difference.

Excellent explanation, thanks. I do have a small problem with it. The distance from the sun to the earth is about 220 times the radius of the sun. The space curvature should be quite small at near the earth so the geodesic should be pretty close to the flat space straight line. The direction of motion of the light should be differenr from the effect of gravity.

To compare a line in flat space and the line bent by space/time curvature, consider a line in flat space that is tangent to the sun’s surface. The same line in curved space/time (the geodesic) will be bent and stretched near the sun. A light year from the sun in each direction, the curvature of space/time from the sun’s gravity would be infinitesimal so the flat space line would approximant the curved space/time line. This is inconstant with the concept of the sun changing the direction of light because of space/time curvature. What is going on?

Thank you for the link but it didn't really help me much. So we can use 5 dimensions to describe 4 dimensional space/time. Set t, y and z to zero. That should allow a depiction of the w, x slice. Didn't Einstein originally consider only space curvature to calculate the bending of light by the sun, then doubled his result by adding the effect of time curvature?

It takes 4 dimensions to describe the curvature of 3 dimensional space, (w,x,y,z). Since the curvature of space is equivalent to gravity, w is proportionate to 1/d^2 where d is the distance from a mass. To visualize a straight line affected by the curvature of space we can set y and z to zero and use a line parallel to the x axis and the closest distance to the mass set to one. Next calculate the value of w at points for some values of x and plot w against x. The equation to calculate the points on the line is w = (x^2 +1)^.5. The points calculated are: x d w -5 5.0990 0.0385 -4 4.1231 0.0588 -3 3.1623 0.1000 -2 2.2361 0.2000 -1 1.4142 0.5000 0 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.4142 0.5000 2 2.2361 0.2000 3 3.1623 0.1000 4 4.1231 0.0588 5 5.0990 0.0385 Is this correct?

Sorry, I worded that poorly. What I was trying to ask is would a ray of light perpendicular to that ray receive the same amount of deflection at the same position?

I understand. It concerns the energy to escape from the effect of both black holes. Is that demonstration of the direction of the light being independent of the effect of mass?

Since the space is curved between the two black holes is the time that light takes to get by increased or does the equivalence concept mean that since the gravitational acceleration is zero there is no affect on the time the light takes?

Thank you very much. That got me to the correct solution. My error was in the manual calculation of arc seconds to degrees to radians. Now everything matches the 8,75 almost exactly. My error

What am I missing? I wrote a computer program to simulate the Sun’s Gravity. The program says that a light ray passing close to the Sun’s surface will be bent an order of magnitude more than the observed 1.75 arc seconds. So I manually calculated what happens to a light ray skimming the Sun’s surface for 1 second after leaving the closest point to the Sun. That bending was much greater than 1.75 arc seconds. The calculation goes like this: The x distance that the light travels is 300,000,000 meters. The acceleration of gravity at the Sun’s surface is about 274 meters per second per second. The distance traveled in the y direction is about 137 meters. The tangent of the angle is about 137/300,000,000. The arc tangent of it is 34 arc seconds and that is only one half of the total curvature. The values that the program uses are G=6.7e-11, M=1.988e30, c=3e8 and R (Sun radius)=6,957e8. The program says that the light ray that bends 1.75 arc seconds passed the sun at a distance of 5.88e10 meters or 34,000,000 miles from the center of the Sun. That is equal to about one third of the distance to earth. The arithmetic is so simple I must be applying something wrong.

If this article is correct then it has not been experimentally proved that the status of a photon in flight is undetermined. The results are the same whether the photon is undetermined or not. http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_superposition.html It should be noted that, in reality, superpositions can never actually be observed - all we can see is the consequences of their existence, after individual waves of a superposition interfere with each other. Thus, we can never observe an atom in its indeterminate state, or being in two places at once, only the resulting consequences, and physical reality is not determined until the act of measurement takes place and “solidifies” the situation into one state or another. Part of the problem of observing and measuring superpositions is known as decoherence. Any attempt to measure or obtain knowledge of quantum superpositions by the outside world (or indeed any kind of interaction with their environment, even with just a single photon) causes them to decohere, effectively destroying the superposition and reducing it to a single location or state, and also destroying the ability of its individual states to interfere with each other. Decoherence, then, results in the collapse of the quantum wave function and the settling of a particle into its observed state under classical physics, its transition from quantum to classical behaviour.

The Bowling Pin analogy cannot be indeterminate in flight. If the pins continued to rotate it would have the same Spooky Entanglement to deal with. By the same token, if the spin of the Photons did not change in flight the results of CHSH and CH74 would not change. After the smoke clears, the only significant disagreement I have is with the Photon being undetermined in flight. If you could direct me to an experiment the definitively demonstrates the Photon spin is undetermined in flight I would be happy as a lark in spring.

Can't the initial conditions and the final result be described Classically? What happens in between is certainly different. The main point of Bell's theory is that the results can not be reproduced Classically. Since we do not fully understand the Photon, it is strange to claim that it is impossible to describe its action Classically. I am still not satisfied with the justifications of Bell's claim and you are sure I am tilting at windmills.

Swansont said: Your rectangular hole detector depends on how it's put together. I can talk about polarization or spin detection without that. Lszarus said: The construction of the Photon detector influences the result. If it only detected Photons at an angle near zero the results would be very different. Swansont said: Besides, I can snap a picture of the bowling pins and determine their orientation to an arbitrary degree of precision. Lazarus said: If you "snap a picture" of the Photons you have determined their orientation. There has to be a way to get an apples to apples comparison of the initial conditions and the results.

First we need to settle what a perfect detector does. If it only detects things that are perfectly aligned with it then it would get few or zero detections. Photon detectors don’t work that way. The perfect Bowling Pin detector should match the results of the Photon detector. The rectangular hole Bowling Pin detector can match the way Photons are detected as long as the Bowling Pins have some variation in their linear trajectory. That variation should also apply to Photons. If this is a reasonable interpretation we can try to settle the sine/cosine (vertical/horizontal) thing we discussed earlier.

What that proves is that there IS no logic left in the world. Entanglement results can be replicated by Classical physics. Two objects that are always rotated 90 % from each other and both are rotated or randomized together is equivalent to entanglement, whether it be photons or bowling pins. So they are undetermined at the start. When they arrive at the detectors the results are the same whether the got there undetermined or unknown. Even the bowling pins can be undetermined all the way if they are attached in a way that they can rotate together. Calling undetermined in flight superposition does not matter.

What? Quantum and Classical calculations are different, the assumptions are different, they get different results and that proves something???

Swanson said: . (Who said it didn't? The comment was that you had not done this) Lazarus said: You did. From post # 151: Posted 29 December 2015 - 12:43 AM Lazarus, on 28 Dec 2015 - 11:37 AM, said: Both Quantum and Classic are trying to solve the same problem. Swansont said: No, they aren't. -------------------------- Swansont said: The theory of superposition is tested experimentally, and experiment agrees with theory. So no, it is not a circular argument. Lazarus said: Superposition by its self appears difficult to test. Is there a direct experimental test of superposition? ----------------------------- imatfaal post # 155 4. Quantum mechanical results cannot be replicated, explained, or paralleled by Classical analogies - because the ideas of entanglement and quantum superposition are completely anathema to Classical physics. Lazarus said: It is easily agreed that Classical physics is in opposition to entanglement and quantum superposition but that is no reason the results of experiments cannot be compared if the correct choice of Classical calculations is made. --------------------------------- imatfaal said: You can read up on the Aspect Experiment. The Classical (it is classicAL not classic BTW) configuration does not exist! If it did we would get the results that it must predict. Instead we get the results predicted by quantum mechanics. Lazarus said: I found this while looking at the Aspect Experiment. It is part of the paper from Brilliant Light Power. Has it been discredited? -No Spooky Actions at a Distance 2005 Brilliant Light Power. Inc. http://brilliantlightpower.com/aspect-experiment/ The Aspect experiment is often invoked as the proof of the quantum-mechanical nature of reality [1-9] wherein nothing in the universe (e.g. photons, electrons, neutrons, atoms), nor the universe itself, has a definite form until it is measured. An even more disturbing prediction of quantum mechanics is that a measurement of a quantum entity can instantaneously influence another light years away. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) in a classic paper [10] argued that such a consequence proved that Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM) was not a complete theory, but it could be corrected by a reinterpretation of SQM predictions as outcomes of existence of “hidden variables,” the specification of which would predetermine the result of measuring any observable of the physical system. Bell showed that no local hidden-variable theory could reproduce all of the statistical predictions of SQM. Thus, a paradox arises from Einstein’s conviction that SQM predictions concerning spatially separated systems are incompatible with the condition for locality unless hidden variables exist. It turns out that the argument for local hidden variables is incorrect. Furthermore, Bell’s theorem is irrelevant since the results are deterministic and are exactly predicted from classical physics. Aspect measured the polarization correlation (coincidence count rate) of visible photons (v1= 551.3 nm, v2= 422.7 nm) emitted in a (J=0) to (J=1) to (J=0) calcium atomic cascade. The calcium atoms were selectively pumped to the upper level of the cascade from the ground state by a two photon absorption via two lasers (blue beam). The fluorescent light was collected by lenses and made incident on two detectors (smooth plates) – one at position -z and the other at position +z relative to the emitting calcium atoms (light blue sphere). The polarizers (plates with lines along each optical axis) were independently rotated in the xy-plane, and the coincidence count rate was measured (box connected to both detectors). According to the quantum explanation, the polarization of each photon of a pair is not determined until a measurement is made, and the act of measuring the polarization of one photon causes an instantaneous action at a distance with regard to the measurement of the polarization of the other member of a given pair. Observations of correlated photon polarization is interpreted as proof of a spooky action at a distance. Thus, information travels faster than the speed of light in violation of special relativity, or nonlocality and noncausality are aspects of physical reality. Since there exists no independent results that support such a nonsensical prediction which is disproved by innumerable experiments as well as everyday experience, it is not surprising that a physical explanation exists. The sequence of events based on physical laws is shown in Figures 37.8A-E. The expectation value of the coincidence rate at separated randomly oriented polarization analyzers for pairs of photons emitted from a doubly-excited state atom was derived from the equation of the photon. Rather than a point that obeys a probability-density wave, the photon is an extended particle with a finite radius given by the wavelength of the photon divided by 2*Pi. Consequently, the photon’s electric field vector has a projection onto the axis of each rotated polarizer’s axis. Angular momentum of the doubly excited-state atom is conserved by emitting photons of the same linear polarization in opposite directions. Thus, the photon polarization is exactly correlated based on physics. Based on these physical attributes of the emitted photons, the normalized coincidence count rate, R(Phi)/R0, as a function of the relative polarizer orientation, Phi, is given by: R(phi)/R(0) = 0.2490+0.2178 cos(2phi) which matches with the results of Aspect [1]. The details are given in Chapter 37 of R. Mills ---------------------------------------- imatfaal said: Both Dr Lorenzo's (which you have read and not grasped) and Dr Chinese's (which is brilliant and I would recommend) elucidations are very very simple compared to the heavy-duty maths and statistics required when you get down and dirty; if you are struggling to get to grips with the logic I cannot see how the measurements can help. Lazarus said: There is no question that the complex mathematics of Quantum physics gives correct answers. I have no desire or ability to comprehend its intricacies. The results of the experiments are all that is necessary to be able to compare Quantum results with Classical results. -------------------------------------------- imatfaal said: Dr Lorenzo's (which you have read and not grasped) Lazarus said: For the coins property B has a total probability of 1. That is that the probability of a coin being either gold or copper is 1. Is the total probability of B in the Quantum expression { | b0 is identical to ½ |0> + 3^.5/2|1> B = { { ||b1 is identical to 3^.5/2|0> - ½|1> equal to 1, to match the coins? ------------------------------- imatfaal said: Dr Chinese's (which is brilliant and I would recommend) elucidations are very very simple. Lazarus said: The Dr Chinese article said there must be 3 hidden variables for the 3 settings at different angles. The only hidden variable you need is the one angle of rotation of the pair. The Classical treatment can account for the percentage of detections. --------------------------- Lazarus note: Bell’s original proof introduces lambda into his equation to get an answer different from the Quantum answer. He said that lambda can be a value, a function or almost anything. For the proof to be valid his equations must be correct for all choices of lambda. I choose lambda = 1. That means lambda does not change his equations. --------------------------

Part of the Nanotechnology glossary: Superposition is a principle of quantum theory that describes a challenging concept about the nature and behavior of matter and forces at the sub-atomic level. The principle of superposition claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check. It is the measurement itself that causes the object to be limited to a single possibility. ------------------ Aren’t you using the theory of superposition to prove superposition? It was mentioned that the Lorenzo proof is not comparing the same Quantum situation to the Classic situation. If a Classic configuration gets the same result as the Quantum result then superposition is not needed. Can you describe a specific experiment that shows that it is impossible to conceive of a Classic solution?

It is very helpful that is was pointed out the coins and the Quantum problems are not the same. In order to make the coins problem a closer match to the Quantum one, all we have to do is fix the coins. Rather than have the coins 100 or 0 % gold we will make them an alloy of gold and copper with gold running from 0 to 100 % gold with the rest copper. The coins surface is 0 to 100 % shiny. The radius of the coins runs from 0 to 1. Now align the gold with the positive z axis. Align shiny with the y axis and large with the x axis. Restrict the locus of points to a sphere with a radius of ½. Consider the probability of each of the 3 conditions to be their x, y or z values. Up spin is the positive direction and down spin in the negative direction of the vector. The collapse is when the x, y, z vector is in one hemisphere as a zero and a one in the other hemisphere. A quick glance looks like the probabilities would be about half of the original coins problem.

I see what you mean. Lorenzo is not comparing Quantum results to Classic results. Coins and electrons work differently and that Quantum results violate Bell’s Inequality. Sounds kind of like the probability of snow in Phoenix + the probability of snow in Tucson + the probability of snow in Yuma = 3/10000 > or = 1 which violates Bell’s Inequality. Since the rules for photons and electron are different from the rules for the coins, what are the rules for orthogonally entangled photons?

Both Quantum and Cllassic are trying to solve the same problem. If there are different experimental results from the same experiment something is seriously wrong with the experiment.